In Honor of Flag Day

Let [my] last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the glorious ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto...spread over all in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart, - Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable! - Daniel Webster

The stars and stripes have been loosed to the winds of freedom and have basked in the light of liberty. - Author unknown

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

On the anniversary of a pivotal moment in history, a few select quotes from President Reagan's speech are as apropos today regarding the current struggle against terrorists as they were in 1987 in the struggle against Communism.

...But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

...In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth. Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place--a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.

...Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront.

...And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again.

A Boycott Won't Do Anything

A little over one year ago, I posted an article entitled “It's Not The Oil Companies.” In that article, I argued that oil and gasoline prices had nothing to do with evil machinations by “Big Oil,” the laws of supply and demand, President Bush, or any other of the kooky conspiracy theories of the far left. One year after writing that article, we are once again daily barraged with calls to conduct one-day boycotts of gasoline stations. Once again, I am compelled to disabuse the public of the notion that they can have any effect on the price of gasoline. However, before we get into the detailed statistical analysis, certain things from that article are worthy of being repeated.

“Big Oil's” profit due to the sale of a gallon of gasoline has been remarkably consistent over time at approximately 9 cents. In contrast, the Federal Government takes 18.4 cents per gallon in taxes. Here in California, the State assesses an additional 32 cents per gallon in taxes. If “Big Oil's” profits are “obscene,” (in the words of Sen. Clinton), then the Federal Government's and State's profits are twice and 3.5 times as obscene, respectively.

Although Exxon recently reported the largest corporate profit in history as measured in hard dollars, this belies the fact that their profit percentage was still only 9%. Quarter after quarter there are corporations that earn 20% or more profit margin. The US historical average for all corporations is 12%. “Big Oil” is earning a below average return on their investment while still delivering a commodity that fuels the modern world. This is because they pump much of the return into activities designed to generate more oil (and more taxes for the insatiable Government).

It seems, however, that as soon as someone is elected to Congress, he forgets that there are no simple answers in life. To Democrats, the solution to high gas prices is more taxes. To Republicans, the solution is drilling in ANWR. Neither action would be efficacious in the long run because petrochemicals are traded exclusively as a commodity. The price of a barrel of oil is set by speculators, not market conditions.

The idea that a single day boycott (or a boycott of any length, for that matter) can lower gasoline prices is even more ludicrous than the idea that assessing “windfall” taxes on the oil companies will. To understand this, it is first necessary to realize that gas is gas. The only thing that makes Exxon gas different from Shell gas is each company's proprietary blend of additives (mostly detergents and cleaning agents). These get added to the delivery truck after it tanks up at a fuel depot. This is why you pay more at Shell than at Rotten Robbie. Shell charges a premium for their intellectual property (the additives); Rotten Robbie just buys plain gas.

Gas companies routinely trade inventory in order to balance deliveries to different parts of the country (i.e. Exxon may have a surplus in the NE and a deficit in the SW, while Shell has the opposite situation). Each depot has tanks holding each company's additive, allowing the depot to serve all customers with any available gas stocks. While it is true that some of the oil companies own refineries and private depots, the fact remains that since they are constantly horse trading their inventories, there is no way to cause one company to gain enough excess supply to drive the price of gas down because gas is gas. If this were not the case, so-called independent stations could not exist, as they would have no gas supply.

On top of that, even if the whole country were to participate in the boycott on the same day, the oil companies would just sell their supply in another country. This would also happen if Clinton gets her way with the added tax. The supply will be diverted to another country with a lower tax burden.

Further complicating the picture is another little-known secret of the oil industry. The rules say that as soon as you put a barrel of oil into the system at any point, you may take a barrel of oil out of the system at any point. This is one reason why drilling in ANWR will not help. Since North Slope oil has an extremely high sulfur content, virtually none of it can be refined in the US. So although the global supply of oil would increase with every barrel produced, the US stocks would not change (in fact, they could go down due to the rule above). However, since the price of a barrel of oil or gas is completely independent of actual inventory, the net change in stock would have no change in price, as will be shown below.

Before we move to the statistical analysis, we turn our attention to one final item, and that is how oil is actually traded. In the commodities world, traders essentially bet on what they think inventories will do over a given period of time. When the news report tells you that stocks of distillates are 5% lower than they were this time last year, the collective response should be a resounding “so what?” Whatever conditions existed last year that lead to certain buying and selling decisions have no bearing on whatever conditions exist this year that lead to different buying and selling decisions. And those decisions have nothing to do with actual market conditions since by their very nature, they are dealing with future events.

While it is true that a given event can be expected to have a certain outcome, there is no guarantee that that outcome will come to pass. Thus, if some oil workers in Nigeria are kidnapped today, it is reasonable to expect tomorrow's output to be lower. But that does not guarantee the output will still be lower 1 month or 3 months from now, the standard lead times for petrochemical contracts. And 3 months from now, irrespective of the actual market conditions, there is no market correction because the speculators are then betting on what will happen in the next 3 months.

Thus, the price of a barrel of oil today was set 3 months ago. Front-month contract pricing (the price one company pays another to “borrow” oil) was set 1 month ago. Both prices were set by speculators based on what they expected inventory levels to be at some point in the future. The contracts that they close today are for future deliveries based on expected future inventories. Week-to-week, month-to-month, or even year-over-year changes in actual inventory levels in actuality are an insignificant variable that goes into pricing decisions. Yet the speculators use these changes (especially negative changes) to drive huge price fluctuations. It cannot be said enough: since the price paid today is for a future delivery of oil, actual inventory today has no bearing on that price.

So now, as promised, here is the statistical analysis that should prove once and for all that actual inventories have no bearing on gas and oil prices. I do not flatter myself that this will put to end the endless speculation of various conspiracies, but anyone willing to think rationally about this should easily come to the conclusion that these little boycotts will not change prices now or in the future. And for those who may not trust my numbers, the source document can be found at: tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_stoc_wstk_dcu_nus_m.htm

On the short list of things that Federal agencies are good at is keeping data. An examination of the data reveals some interesting information. If we look at month-end total inventories (excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) of oil from 1920-Feb 07 (the last month for which the chart contains data), we find that on average, US oil stocks have been 302,675,000 barrels. The standard deviation over this time period is 67,451,000. This is equal to about 3-days consumption. This means that on average, at the end of the next month, there will be either 3-days less oil or 3-days more oil than at the end of this month.

Things get more interesting if we look at only the last 10 years worth of data. The month-end average from 1987 to the present is 321,986,000 barrels with a standard deviation of only 23,378,000 barrels. Which means that over the last 10 years, the purchasers of oil have maintained inventory levels within 1-days consumption regardless of price. Even more telling is the fact that the total inventory reported for the week ending 11 May was 342,220,000 barrels (within 1 standard deviation). If supply and demand were truly an issue, oil should be priced near its historical average.

How about for gasoline supplies? This data only goes back as far as 1945 with the historical month-end average being 197,360,000 barrels of refined, ready-to-use, automotive gas. The standard deviation for this time period is 42,141,000 barrels. Over the last 10 years, the figures are 213,300,000 barrels in stock and 12,588,000 barrels standard deviation. As of 11 May, there were 195,235,000 barrels of ready-to-use gas at the depots waiting for distribution. This is nearly 99% of the historical average and less than 2 standard deviations from the 10 year average. Again, gasoline prices should be very near the historical average.

The most important point here is that despite “unexpected refinery problems,” seasonal variation, kidnappings in Nigeria, embargoes from Saudi Arabia, Halliburton, and Bush, the total amount of gasoline sitting around waiting for distribution to your corner gas station has been remarkably consistent. The same is true for oil inventories.

It's not rocket science. There is no conspiracy to enrich the CEOs of the oil companies. There is no shortage of oil or gas. There is no need to assess new taxes or raise old ones. Gas and oil prices are high today because a group of commodities traders believe that they will be incapable of doing what they have been doing for nearly 90 years – keeping average inventories in a very tight range. In essence, they are betting on their own incompetence.

America Is The Worst Empire In History

The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America, God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind. - Pope Pious XII

After the War for Independence, having shown that a few men with the will to "assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them" could stand against the mightiest army in the world, Americans went home.

After the second time England failed to subjugate America under the weight of tyranny, Americans went home.

After coming to the rescue of the free world and utterly destroying the Pasha's ability to wage piracy in the Mediterranean, America went home.

After completing the goal of preserving the Union, the Army of the North went home.

After freeing Cuba and the Philippines from the yoke of oppression, America went home.

After coming to the rescue of the free world again and beating back the tides of fascism, America went home.

At the end of the Second World War, when the only credible military left on the entire planet was America, so powerful indeed that had we wanted to do so, we could have conquered the world, America went home.

After freeing the southern half of the Korean peninsula from the Communist hordes, America went home.

From that home, America cast light on the failures of Communism, and without firing a single shot liberated millions, asking for nothing in return.

We clearly are doing this empire thing wrong.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of non-imperialistic tendencies, the liberal hordes have decried America and her military as violent conquerors, hell-bent on subjugating the world. Despite never once remaining in de facto political control without native consent of any country or territory longer than absolutely necessary to get them back on their feet, the liberal hordes continue to insist that America and her military are the worst tyrants in the world. And despite the fact that both Japan and Germany, after initially calling America's presence an "occupation," came to depend on America to stabilize their war torn countries, the liberal hordes continue to denounce our efforts in Iraq.

When will the Democrats open their eyes to history? When will the moral equivalence arguments cease? What does it take to get the Democratic leadership to acknowledge that the Iraqis are infinitely better off today than they were under Saddam? Since when did the Democrats take up preemptive surrender, formerly the national sport of France alone?

Damascus Nancy and her cohorts need to understand that the Constitution vests sole power for conducting foreign policy in the President. There is no Republican foreign policy and Democrat foreign policy. There is no Bush policy and Pelosi policy. Even under the most generous reading of the Constitution, Congressional authority in the foreign policy arena is strictly limited to the Senate's role in approving treaties. Nowhere in that great document does the Speaker of the House, or any House member for that matter, receive any power to conduct independent foreign policy initiatives.

This is not to suggest that there cannot be debate on what America's policy should be. A free and open society will always be made up of people who disagree. Damascus Nancy is certainly entitled to her opinion, but once the President has decided on a course of action completely within his authorized powers, it is the indisputable duty of all Congressional members to adhere to that policy. The tripartite system of government we enjoy did not create three "co-equal" branches of government. It created three branches that had separate and distinct powers, and granted the other branches checks and balances on those powers.

While we may be fighting a war, we are not "at war." Whether the President has deployed the military in his capacity as Executive in charge of foreign policy (which he has), or in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief (which he can't since Congress never declared war), Congress cannot lay preconditions on the continued use of the military or restrict the President's authorized powers in any way. The situation we are in today is the exact reason why Nixon vetoed the War Powers Act (and most likely the reason Congress over-rode his veto). The Democrats are attempting to absolve themselves of all responsibility while still maintaining their authority. This is nothing short of a Constitutional crisis.

That being said, I am appalled at the number of people calling Pelosi's actions "treason." Her actions may very well be illegal, but they do not rise to the level of treason. Hanoi Jane committed treason when she posed on an anti-aircraft gun in North Viet Nam, not when she marched in an anti-war protest. Code Pink committed treason when they went to Baghdad to serve as human shields, not when they occupied Damascus Nancy's Congressional office. Even if she had diverted foreign aid money to Damascus, although certainly illegal, it is hard to say that would have risen to the level of treason for the simple reason that America is not at war with Syria. Refusing to pass a "clean" funding bill is misguided, not treason.

It is, however, absolutely inexcusable for the Democrats to continue to trade national security for short-term political gain. Every day their enablers in the MSM tally up the number of American deaths without ever once tallying the enemy. Every roadside and homicide bombing is reported, but left unmentioned are the vast swaths of the country that are stable and vibrant. Our soldiers are denigrated as being murderous thugs from poor, uneducated backgrounds while the reality is that the average soldier has higher education and comes from a more affluent background than the average American. Indeed, the only under-represented demographics in the military are the poor and uneducated.

America has a near limitless capacity for being a force of good in the world. A recent analysis of US foreign aid and UN votes showed that the more money a country received from the US, the more likely that country was to vote against the US position in the General Assembly. Yet America turns the other cheek time and time again and continues to give those countries billions of dollars in aid. We do this because we believe in the universal right of all people everywhere to choose their own governments. We do this because we believe that we have an obligation to help shine the beacon of freedom wherever the shadow of tyranny falls. We do this because "[i]nto the hands of America, God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind." We do not do this to expand an empire.

It's not rocket science. America has liberated more people than all the armies of all the countries in history. And in the end, we always go home. America always has and always will give its time, talent, and treasure to support oppressed people in all corners of the globe and then leave them alone. Perhaps it is these undeniably Christian actions that have the liberals so worked up, because it sure can't be the "empire."

On The Latest "Non-Amnesty" Amnesty

But the almost unchecked influx of immigrants who are not desirable citizens cannot but harm the country. In these days of international trade it is right that ingress and egress from one country to another should be unhampered, but persons who have committed crimes at home, or who are ignorant and illiterate, cannot become desirable citizens anywhere. - Wu Ting Fang



The White House has recently rolled out its PowerPoint presentation on the latest incarnation of the "non-amnesty" amnesty program ("Penalties are the difference between amnesty and restitution"). It seeks to create new agencies, visa categories, and mechanisms to allow even more illegal aliens into the country, all the while claiming that the lessons of 1986 have been learned. Once again, the plan fails miserably to address the fundamental problem: these people are in this country illegally and there must be consequences.

First things first. I am not opposed to a guest worker program. If someone outside the country identifies a position that a legal resident does not want and follows proper channels to obtain the legal right to come here temporarily to do that job and then go home, I say all the power to him. But when someone is already here illegally, we should not be looking to reward him with a specially created visa and some nominal monetary penalty.

The plan claims as one on its goals the desire to "bring illegal workers out of the shadows." Where are these shadows? On any given day, I can find dozens of illegal aliens benefiting from lax enforcement standing in the Home Depot parking lot. The only "shadows" they are hiding in are the ones under the trees on a sunny day. Illegal alien loving lawyers have no problem finding clients to bring forth lawsuits demanding in-state tuition rates for college. The newspapers are full of stories of families "living in the shadows," complete with pictures, names, and addresses. Illegal aliens wear T-shirts that proudly proclaim their criminal status. They hold parades and rallies that draw thousands into the street. This just may be the smallest shadow ever measured.

The plan seeks to create a probationary card for illegals. Unfortunately, there is no incentive for an illegal to come forward and declare himself during the "non-amnesty" amnesty grace period. First of all, if he does, he has to pay money ($3500 every three years, which is hardly the "substantial" penalty claimed). Secondly, the penalty for non-compliance is pathetically low. If he is caught "crossing the border after a date certain" the illegal will be deported. The simple fact that he is already here shows that there are ways through the porous borders. Many illegals have made multiple crossings without ever being caught. If you deport the illegal, he will just return as long as there is an incentive to do so. Until the government cracks down with meaningful fines and jail terms for both the illegal alien and the illegal alien employer, that incentive will always remain.

The illegals who choose to comply would be issued special "Z-Visas" and are still eligible to obtain Lawful Permanent Resident status. They are assessed the paltry sum of $10,000 in recognition of their former illegal status. Only the head of the household need leave the US to adjust status. The rest of the family can remain. Once again, we are rewarding criminal behavior by assuring the illegal that there are no consequences for his past law-breaking. And the longer they have been here breaking the law, the better chance they have to obtain the "merit-based" LPR. So apparently the "merit" contemplated by this provision means whoever is the best scofflaw. In fact, under the proposed laws, an illegal who has been here for decades has a better chance of obtaining LPR status than does a brand-new, never-before-entered-illegally, Y-visa holder. I though one of the lessons learned from the 1986 amnesty was not to reward criminal behavior?

Most egregious in this plan, however, it the provision for "initial implementation of secure identification tools for all Americans and aliens seeking employment." Although I see nothing wrong with a national ID card, why should Americans and legal citizens be punished for the transgressions of the criminals? Or was this trigger created to ensure that we will never have to implement this "non-amnesty" amnesty plan? After all, it would likely take years for all of the expected legal challenges to a national ID card to be resolved. And what about my passport? Is that no longer a "secure identification tool?"

How does requiring me to obtain such a card prevent racial profiling anyway, the stated reason for its creation? When I get a job today, I am required to submit proof of my lawful employment status (the infamous "1 from column A or 1 from column B and 1 from column C" form). The only people not currently using this form are illegal alien employers and the ones who fraudulently submit documents identified on the form are illegal aliens. That is the legal definition of compliance. We are all subject to the same check currently. By definition, a law that is applied universally certainly cannot be racial profiling. Making the criminals comply with the current law is not racial profiling either, since it applies universally.

My final point of contention is that the "non-amnesty" amnesty includes the provision that "Employer verification becomes mandatory for all new hires." Here's a news flash - it already is, but illegal alien employers don't do it. Forget about voluntary compliance, start conducting audits. Every business should have its records examined at least once a year by ICE agents. As long as the employers get away with minor fines and little or no jail time, the opportunity cost of non-compliance with the law is low. Until business owners face guaranteed exposure and substantial penalties, they will continue to illegally employ those continuing to come here illegally. Wasn't another lesson of the 1986 amnesty that if you didn't focus on the employers, the ranks of illegals would increase?

It's not rocket science. Every single illegal alien currently in America has committed at least 2 crimes: he exited his home country without authorization and then entered the US without authorization. The vast majority are illiterate. Wu Ting Fang rightly concluded that these are not desirable immigrants. The undeniable effect of this latest plan is that potential illegal aliens will see the advantage to enter the US in contravention of immigration law in the hopes that the next "non-amnesty" amnesty will learn the same lessons that this one learned from the 1986 amnesty - namely, we aren't serious about criminal entry to this country as long as you are a member of a properly-hyphenated minority.

It Could Be Worse

To say that the recently drafted "emergency supplemental appropriations bill" was an abomination would just barely give it the credit that it deserves. Still, it could have been worse. Democrats only added $24B to the price tag to cover their favorite socialist projects. I guess this is the new definition of “fiscal restraint” as promised by Princess Pelosi.

At a tree-killing 170+ pages, with nearly 100 of that dedicated to pork, you really have to wonder how the Democrats can be considered the environmental party. How difficult would it have been to authorize the additional funds for the specific purposes for which the President asked? It is ludicrous to argue that anything beyond page 69 has anything to do with fighting the terrorists. Pages 70-79 are full of unnecessary restrictions on the use of the funds appropriated that have the sole effect of preventing the US military from doing the job it exists to do. The remaining pages add nothing but waste.

For the moment, let us set aside the provisions directly related to fighting the bad guys and let us focus on all of the extraneous items Princess Pelosi has designated as “emergencies” some of which are just plain nonsense.

Take Section 6003, which changes the wording in a Federal law from "aid or assistance is made available under part B of title IV to children in foster care" to "child welfare services are made available under part B of title IV on the basis of being a child in foster care." That's a huge improvement. What possible argument can be advanced to include a minor, semantic change to a Federal law in an appropriations bill? What possible purpose can such a semantic change serve? To any rational human, there is absolutely no difference in meaning in either phrase. Yet this was so important, that it had to make it into the “emergency” category. Somehow, I think there are more pressing issues with which Congress ought to be dealing.

Then there is Title II, Chapter 6 which is a direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. Congress has no business dictating local education requirements or administrative structure to a State. In the first place, there is no place in the Constitution where there exists either a right to public education, nor a power for Congress to regulate either the non-existent right or the educational system itself. Thus, we are squarely within the realm of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

All public education in the US is based on a law passed way back in the 1640s in the (then) colony of Massachusetts. That law mandated that every town above 50 families hire a schoolmaster, and every town above 100 families allocate some amount of public land to build an elementary school. Although required to include a basic curriculum of reading and the catechism, towns were free to include any other course of instruction that the local officials felt beneficial to society, and were also free to judge of the qualifications of the teacher(s) hired.

Nowhere in this law did the local authorities give up the right to exercise absolute, sovereign control over the local school. Since every public school law in American owes its existence to this first law, and further since the Constitution is silent on the issue of public education in America, Congress cannot dictate any restrictions or regulations on the organization of the administrative elements of a school.

Irrespective of this, again we must ask ourselves what possible “emergency,” let alone one related to fighting terrorists, could be used to justify the inclusion of purely administrative regulations on the public school system of the Pacific Northwest in this supplemental.

And then we come to the increase in minimum wage, or as Princess Pelosi styles it “The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007.” What better way to slow an expanding economy and reverse a declining unemployment rate. Of course, this may be exactly what the Democrats are after. Since the current President unfairly gets credit or blame for the state of the economy, why not hurt it just in time for the primaries.

Congressional action in this area is just misguided. It is easy to mandate wages, but Congress cannot regulate production. Mandating a minimum wage increase will not, indeed cannot, motivate a worker to produce more. Anyone who is still earning minimum wage after 6 months on the job is not worth the salary he is being paid to begin with, but now Congress wants to tell him “here's a raise just for breathing. You don't need to do any additional work. Just show up and we will force your boss to pay you more every 6 months for the next 2 years.” How is that boss going to offset his increased labor cost? The answer is either by raising prices or firing workers. That is an inescapable reality of a mandated minimum wage.

The free market is a remarkable thing. It lets people decide if they are willing to work for a certain remuneration. If there are not enough workers at a given wage, then rates rise. If there are too many workers, rates fall. The fact that unemployment has been declining since 2004 despite there having been no increase in the minimum wage certainly belies the belief that Congress needs to step in.

As for all of the farm subsidies, I'm only going to say that people need to take responsibility for their own lives. Congress already pays too many farmers too much money not to grow certain crops. These subsidies artificially keep the prices of certain goods high. If you are going to build your dairy farm in a flood plain, don't come crying to the taxpayer when your cows drown. If you want sympathy from me, give back your subsidy and produce as much milk as you can.

We now turn our attention to the purpose for which the bill was enacted, namely, to provide “emergency” funding for the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. More specifically, I want to address two instances where Congress is overstepping their powers, which are contained in Sections 1904 and 1905.

Section 1904 provides a laundry list of conditions that must be met in order to expend the monies allocated in the previous sections. At its most basic, Section 1904 provides three artificial deadlines for an unconditional withdrawal of American forces.

If 1400 years of violence cannot be resolved by 1 July 2007, the US must pull out of Iraq by 31 Dec 2007. If, by some miracle, 1400 years of violence is brought to a close by 1 Oct 2007, we must pull out by 1 Oct 2008. If you are a terrorist, you really don't need to do anything in order to ensure the US gets out of your way. Congress has taken away the Constitutional prerogative of the President to wage war as he sees fit.

What a great plan Princess Pelosi has concocted. If the restrictive conditions cannot be met (and as drafted, it does not appear that they can be), Pelosi can claim that we can never achieve success and that Bush is needlessly killing Americans. In this case, not much will change from her current stump speech. It will, however, embolden the enemy. If, despite her best efforts to humiliate America, we succeed, she can claim that her "support" was instrumental in resolving 1400 years of violence, just in time for the 2008 Presidential election. In either case, she has decided to trade partisan politics for national security, all in the hopes of improving her party's chances come next year. This is disgraceful.

To me, however, an even worse affront is Section 1905 which creates a Cabinet level official called the Coordinator for Iraq Assistance. Princess Pelosi believes that Congress has the power to dictate the makeup of the Executive Branch. In addition to usurping the role of Commander-in-Chief, Pelosi has decided that the former “co-equal” Legislative branch of the Federal Government is now superior to the Executive. This is worse than disgraceful. This is nothing more than a petulant child having a temper tantrum.

It's not rocket science. There are no degrees of support for the troops. You either give the US military unconditional material and moral support, or you give the enemy hope. There is no middle ground when the survival of the democratic way of life is the prize. And bills to enable that survival should not be burdened with socialist programs. Note to Princess Pelosi: when your enemy says “I hate you and I am going to kill you,” believe him.

“22 February, 1980”

You can't be common, because the common man goes nowhere. - Herb Brooks

At 5PM Eastern time on 22 Feb, 1980, the world stood in stunned silence as thousands of Americans shouted “USA! USA!” and unabashedly waved American flags of every conceivable size. Over the ensuing hour and a half, the chants rose like ululations to a fervor. Against the backdrop of a decade of collective funk encompassing Viet Nam, Watergate, record inflation, and a hostage crisis, an epic battle was being staged in a sleepy little villiage few had heard of before that night. Americans of all creeds, colors, and political persuasion united in an unmatched show of patriotism behind 20 college students no one even knew. In truth it was nothing more than a hockey game, but when it was over, it seemed that the forces of good had conquered the forces of evil. And so began a period of resurgent American pride, and most importantly, the undaunted American spirit.

Today the legacy of that spirit is being crushed for political gain. The forces of unity have given way to the forces of division. The pride is hidden away lest the anti-American zealots start yet another violent “peace” protest. Partisan politics have trumped national security. The flags have disappeared. We are told that true patriotism means hating America. We are told that supporting the troops means calling them stupid, criticizing their leaders, and denying them the tools needed to do their job. We are told that the solution to the problems of government is more government. We have people abandoning their principles for the sake of better poll numbers. We have a group of people who's irrational hatred of one man causes them to stifle all debate because they know that their own vacuous pontifications cannot withstand the free market of ideas.

Where is the Mike Eruzione, who's simple realization that he was only one small part of a team was the spark that ignited the talents of all? Where is the Jim Craig who responded to criticism of his performance by channeling anger into raw motivation? Where is the Mark Johnson who's sheer ability and knowledge kept us in the game even while others were getting the spotlight? Where is the uncommon man who will have the courage to do what is right not what is popular and in so doing ensures America goes somewhere?

It's not rocket science. Stop the bickering. Stop the carping. Stop the personal attacks. Stop fighting and start doing. It is an undeniable fact that America is the most free, most open, most giving, and least imperialistic power the world has even known. And while America certainly has problems, the problem is not America.

A New Contract With America

Whatever the ultimate reasons were for the Republicans losing last November, it is clear that few of them still in office are willing to fight for the traditional conservative position. Rather than let the Reagan Revolution die, I offer A New Contract With America. I would whole-heartedly support any candidate who unequivocally endorsed the following.

1. Enact term limits

The 22^nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits anyone from seeking more than 2 terms as President of the United States. This law was enacted to prevent a sitting President beginning to feel he was entitled to the job for as long as he jolly-well pleased. Despite the fact that term limits on the President were not codified in the original document, Washington prudently declined a third term, seeing the possibility of the role appearing imperial if a President were to die in office. The 22^nd Amendment made official what Washington recognized implicitly.

Despite the history of debate surrounding term limits for the President, Congress has failed to notice their increasingly aristocratic behavior. Congress now views their main objective as re-election, with Congressmen routinely serving 20+ years and then having their offspring run for (and usually winning) a retiree's seat. This prevents Congress from acting in the best interest of the country and instead focuses them on getting the largest slice of Federal pie for the home district.

Congress must remember the words of Thomas Paine: “Government is not a trade which any man or body of men has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties.” It is time to enact the term limits that were promised in 1994.

2. Enforce immigration law

It is an incontrovertible fact that there are millions of people in this country illegally. It is equally incontrovertible that Islamic terrorists have used our openness against us to set up cells within our country. While we worship at the alter of multi-cultural tolerance, those that seek to destroy us and those who refuse to follow legal immigration channels both play the race card in order to further their illegal activities.

We do not need “comprehensive immigration reform,” nor do we need to expand or add government agencies. We need to enforce the laws that we already have. It is against the law to come into the US without authorization. It is against the law to hire those who are illegal. It is against the law to obstruct the investigation of someone's immigration status. Yet we daily allow these activities to take place.

There is nothing racist about saying to potential immigrants that if you want to live and work in the US you need to line up with everyone else. There is nothing fascist about telling a company they will be fined if they hire illegal aliens. It is simply a matter of respecting the laws of the country.

The multiculturalists invariably say that these “hard-working immigrants” are “doing the jobs Americans won't” and are just trying to “make a better life for their families.” The fact remains that the first act these aliens did was to break the laws of America and then were rewarded for doing so. How is that making a better life? Estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the US range from 11-20 Million. The IRS has issued only 8 Million Taxpayer ID numbers and only 2 Million of those are used annually to file taxes. Thus, the vast majority of illegal aliens continue to break the law over and over and over while liberals cry “tolerance! respect!”

The logistical challenge of deporting millions of illegal aliens is not a reason not to do it. We must enforce existing immigration laws. We must teach illegal aliens that there are consequences when you break the law. And we must teach those who wish to destroy us that you either believe in the freedoms granted to all Americans or you may not live here.

3. Fix the tax system and balance the budget once and for all

The federal deficit exists not because of tax cuts but because of spending increases. Government's sole obligation is to deliver basic services necessary to the functioning of a free society and then get out of the way of the free market. No amount of regulation, no number of bureaucrats can ever match the power of private enterprise.

Congress must change its attitude towards both taxes and spending. A pure flat tax assessed on all income at the time of its creation is the fairest and simplest tax system. A complex progressive tax with myriads of deductions and exemptions creates an incentive to find ways to avoid paying those taxes. As the opportunity cost of cheating the system increases, the percentage of those so doing will decrease. That is an inevitable result of a flat tax with no deductions and exemptions.

Zero-based budgeting, wherein every spending bill identifies its funding source would remove the final political nail from taxation and properly recognize that revenue and spending are tightly connected. Tax cuts only increase deficits and budget “surpluses” only reduce deficits when spending remains the same.

Additional procedural reform will be necessary to ensure that Congress does not backslide into their old pork-spending ways. Such changes include raising the majority for any tax raise or tax cut to 2/3 and baring spending amendments that have nothing to do with the bill being discussed. This latter is especially needed to prevent the Senate from violating the spirit of the Constitution's granting of the power to initiate spending bills exclusively to the House.

4. Enforce Roe v. Wade

Let's acknowledge Roe as the “settled law of the land” and enact legislation consistent with the actual ruling. That means:

1. An immediate ban on all late-term abortions, where “late-term” is defined as the point of viability (the point at which the fetus could survive outside of the mother).

2. Regulation of all abortion procedures done after the “compelling point” (arbitrarily defined by Blackmun in his ruling as the end of the first trimester). Such regulation will include an outright ban on all procedures not done for the express purpose of preserving the health and safety of the mother, as agreed by two separate, licensed physicians. Such regulation will also include licensing requirements for both surgeons and facilities providing the procedure.

3. Start a national debate around resolving the unanswered question in Roe, namely, what the “compelling point” actually is. Blackmun engaged in a rather lengthy historical analysis to try to define the “compelling point,” ultimately deciding on the end of the first trimester. That decision is not supported by any of the historical arguments (which demonstrated widely varying interpretations) and is therefore open to debate. This debate must, however, be purely scientific and not religious in nature.

5. Enact sensible gun laws

Owning a gun is an individual right. No honest reading of the historical record can lead one to conclude that that was not intended by the Second Amendment. However, with rights come responsibilities. Requiring current or future gun owners to demonstrate basic competence with a firearm is both reasonable and Constitutional.

Arbitrary restrictions on gun ownership based on the belief that more guns equals more crime will never result in decreasing gun-related violence. We need only look at two countries to see the folly of this belief. Taiwan has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the world – possession of any firearm carries the death penalty. Switzerland has one of the most inclusive gun laws in the world – all citizens between certain ages must own an infantry rifle. In Taiwan there is on average 1 murder per week committed with a gun along with hundreds of armed robberies. In Switzerland, gun-aided crime is nearly zero.

Sensible gun legislation would include limiting individuals to possession of any weapon likely to be employed by infantrymen, up to and including assault weapons. Logically included in this would be inferior and antique weapons. Sensible gun legislation would also include a requirement to obtain a license after demonstrating basic competence, just as sensible driving laws demand that a person demonstrate the ability to properly handle a vehicle prior to obtaining a driver's license.

Finally, sensible gun legislation would also include a law to shield gun manufacturers from liability lawsuits except in the case of negligence as well as specifying additional penalties for the commission of crimes involving the use of firearms.

6. Repeal Social Security

It is futile to assume that Social Security can last. The truth is that Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, has been borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund for years. By the best estimates, there is already a $4 Trillion unfunded obligation. Whether the cost of Personal Savings Accounts is $6 Trillion or $10 Trillion really doesn't matter. We simply cannot afford to continue this program.

An honest recognition that something must be done is needed. Simple demographics conclusively demonstrates that the current program is not supportable. Whether we increase payroll taxes, decrease benefits, or delay retirement age, the fact remains that we cannot indefinitely continue to fund individual retirement for all Americans. Nor should the Federal Government be in the retirement business.

The unfunded obligation started the day Congress first got the bright idea to try to reduce the deficit by “borrowing” against the Trust Fund. And that unfunded obligation means that at some point in the future (an again it does not matter whether it is 2040, 2041, or 2070) there will be no money to pay anyone. However, just as it was necessary to enact Social Security in the first place, it is also necessary, albeit unfortunate, that we cannot simply “turn off the faucet” so to speak. Therefore, any proposal to repeal or replace Social Security must contain an age-based phase out period. This is not only sensible, but vital to the economic future of America.

Why Companies Fail

I received this in an email a while ago. I don't know who the author is, but this is the only management book anyone needs to read.

"A Japanese company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day the Japanese won by a mile.

Afterward, the American team became very discouraged and morally depressed. The American management decided the reason for the crushing defeat had to be found. A Management Team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and one person rowing. So American management hired a consulting company and paid them an incredible amount of money.

After six months of hard work, they advised that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. So the American Team acted: To prevent losing to the Japanese again next year, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the Rowing Team Quality First Program, with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. Even new paddles and medical benefit incentives were promised for a winner. We must give the rower the empowerment and enrichments through this quality program.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles and canceled all capital investments for new equipment.

The money saved was distributed to the senior executives as bonuses for a job well done."

Out of Touch; Out of Their Minds

"[Americans] are tired of been ignored by this Do Nothing Republican Congress, while their everyday problems only grow worse." - Joint Statement by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

What?!!?? The Congress has been ignoring me and...and...and I've actually managed to survive??? How can that be? For 12 years, no one has been telling me how to spend my hard-earned money; no one has been telling me what health care plans I can use; no one has been telling me how to live my own life. And yet, somehow, I managed not to kill myself with the gun no one told me I couldn't own. I'm so glad Reid and Pelosi have seen fit to correct this grievous error in a free, capitalist society.

But they are right - my everyday problems are growing worse. The likes of R&P have made it impossible for new refineries to be built. They have made it impossible for oil companies to drill offshore. They have made it impossible for any refinery that is still in business to take American oil from Alaska's North Slope. They have invested billions in the pipe-dream of renewable energy sources, and then caved in to the environmental freaks to keep the windmills from operating out of fear of killing some migratory bird. In short, they have caused the cost of gasoline to skyrocket, and the "Do Nothing Republican Congress" has failed to take action (except try to open ANWR).

The likes of R&P have forced me to donate an increasing percentage of my hard-earned wages to support a failing education system. The have forced me to donate an increasing percentage of my hard-earned wages to support free health care for illegal aliens. The have forced me to donate an increasing percentage of my hard-earned wages to support activist judges who insist on interfering with every aspect of my life. The have forced me to donate an increasing percentage of my hard-earned wages to support a ludicrous worker compensation law. In short, they have tried to instill Socialism in America, and the "Do Nothing Republican Congress" has failed to take action (except to keep the Socialists at bay).

The likes of R&P have spared no effort to criticize America. They have spared no effort to criticize the military and all those who have ever worn the uniform except for Murtha and Kerry. They have spared no effort to blame America for all the evils in the world and excuse the inexcusably barbaric behavior of those who would destroy us. They have spared no effort to publish lies, mis-conceptions, and conspiracy theories to discredit the current Administration. They have spared no effort to publish details of secret programs designed to keep us safe. They have spared no effort to produce movies which glorify terrorism and morally equivocate terrorism with the US Military. In short, they have smeared the good name of those who fight to give R&P the right to be wrong, and the "Do Nothing Republican Congress" has failed to take action (OK, they really have done nothing on this).

It's not rocket science. Yes, the "Do Nothing Republican Congress" has largely ignored me and my everyday problems. Apparently there are still some rational human beings serving in Congress that understand government is not my nanny. And for that, I'm glad I vote Republican.

There They Go Again

Last month, another Congressional sub-committee had another round of “hearings” on the subject of violence in video games. Apparently, a “hearing” involves having a bunch of uninformed idiots determine a position ahead of time and then proceed to bloviate about the perceived problem, all the while refusing to engage in constructive discourse.

And much as was the case last year, the object of special derision was the GTA series of video games. Perhaps no single game franchise has received such attention as GTA III, Vice City, and San Andreas. Predictably, the attention has only caused increased interest in the games and led to record-breaking sales. Rockstar Games could not have paid for better publicity than having a bunch of out-of-touch bureaucrats-for-life condemn the mere existence of GTA.

It is easy to find one or two examples of someone who at least claims his actions were influenced by playing GTA. But it is just as easy to find someone who was not. In fact, it is even easier. There are literally tens of millions of copies of the various GTA games on PCs and consoles around the world. If these games were so influential, shouldn't there have been a measurable increase in violent behavior? Where are the statistics showing rampant car-jacking? Where are the millions of individual people inciting race riots amongst ethnic communities in cities across the world? Where are the dare-devils jumping buildings and bridges in order to score a “Triple Insane Stunt Bonus?” The fact is that it is just not happening.

But that doesn't stop Congress Critters and mothers everywhere from blaming the video games for Johnny's anti-social behavior. This year, though, liberal Congress Critters upped the rhetoric ante by suggesting that violent video games are racist. That's right – apparently, black children are more likely to “act out” the scenes in GTA. Ignoring for a moment that there is absolutely no research to support this ludicrous claim, consider the (il)logic. Your character in each of the GTA games is a criminal. Isn't it racist for the Democrats to suggest that black kids playing criminals are more likely to become criminal themselves?

But all of that belies the problem that video games just don't have the influence on the average person that is claimed. Statistics show that the “average” gamer is a 33 year old male. This prototypical gamer has been playing video games for well over 20 years now. Shouldn't there be a measured effect on the populace by now?

There are thousands of games on the market, not all of which involve violence. Consider the game Myst, which required the player to solve a serious of intriguing puzzles, involving the collection and synthesis of clues scattered throughout the landscape. Even the “hints” had to be interpreted and applied in the right place at the right time. The game required you to use your brain. There was no killing, no BFG, no rampant mayhem, and yet it sold like the proverbial hotcake. Myst was simply a phenomenon. So many copies were sold that it took nearly 10 years before any other game outsold it. In fact, Myst was the first video game to reach 10 million unit sales.

If video games are influencing behaviors, shouldn't Myst have sparked a re-dedication to education? Why were there not millions of people enrolled in critical thinking classes? Or pursuing careers as private investigators? Or propelling Agatha Christie and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle back to the top of the best-sellers list?

Are we to believe that it is only violent video games that are influencing people? The truth is that the anti-video game crowd has been around as long as there have been video games. Some of those Congress Critters have been sitting there in Washington since long before Pong and Venture saw the light of day. It's probably a safe bet that at least a few of them participated in “hearings” on the dangers of Rock-n-Roll.

No, instead what we see is a constant moving of the goal posts. Initially it was “video games” that were dangerous. Then it was “violent video games.” Then it was “animated gratuitous violence.” Then it was “realistically portrayed violence.” And on and on. This moving of the goal posts is an excuse for ever-increasing regulation. In time honored tradition, if the end point keeps moving, success can never be achieved. But more agencies can be created to employ more bureaucrats-for-life.

After playing GTA for a couple of hours, I don't steal the first car I come across and then tear down the road hellbent for high water, crashing into everything I see. I have never felt the urge to pick up a chainsaw or baseball bat and proceed to beat the living daylights out of random people on the streets. I have never entered an illegal drag race. I haven't engaged in any criminal activity, nor have I encouraged such behavior in others because rational people do not do that. There is still such a thing as free will in this world. No game (or movie, or book, or music) can make you do anything.

Most distressing to me is that it is the Republicans who are actually in favor of increased regulation. Capitalism demands that regulation be kept to a minimum in order to allow the free market of ideas to flourish. Consumers vote with their wallets. They choose to buy or not buy entertainment products based on their likelihood of enjoyment, not based on the potential influence that product may contain.

I would like to remind those Republicans that the best government is the smallest government. Get back to doing the important stuff like lowering taxes and stopping the illegal alien invasion. These are the reasons we elected you. That is your job. [end public service announcement]

Besides, where are the parents in this? Government does not have an obligation to raise your kids. Parents have an duty to decide what is and is not appropriate for their own children. Opponents of video games will argue that parents cannot stop Johnny from playing GTA, because he'll just go to a friend's house to play. This argument is fallacious. Pervasiveness is no reason for the government to intervene. Parental responsibility does not end at the front door of their own house.

It's not rocket science. If you don't like GTA, finance the development of a different game that is fun to play. That Myst and Super Mario Brothers are popular titles certainly gives lie to the belief that only through regulation can the world be protected from the evils of violent video games.

It's Wrong, But Is It Treason?

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” US Constitution, Article III. Section 3.

In a previous posting (“Prior Restraint No, Common Sense Yes”) I commented that I did not believe the NYT had engaged in treason in their publishing of classified information in the form of the revelations of the SWIFT terrorist finance tracking program. In this article, I will explain my reasoning.

First off, let me say unequivocally that I believe what the NYT did was both wrong and illegal, and the editorial staff needs to be prosecuted to the full extent that the law allows (which we will see presently). Freedom of the press does not grant an absolute right to say what you wish, nor does it create a fourth, unelected branch of government with full authority to determine in all cases whatsoever what is classified and what is not. Nor is “freedom of the press” a shield against prosecution when a law has been broken. But what the paper did is not treason.

Prior to the War for Independence, King George III had taken to using charges of treason to punish his political enemies. Many colonists were charged with treason for various acts, speeches, and publications that were critical of the Crown's treatment of the colonies. Despite protections for both speech and press that were guaranteed by the English Constitution, colonists so charged were removed to England to stand trial for exercising those rights.

Determined to prevent the executive branch of the new American government from abusing their power in the same way, the Framers decided to codify within the Constitution exactly what constituted “treason.” The bar to prove a charge was set intentionally high, both as an additional guarantee of personal liberties and as a legal barrier to the use of treason as a political weapon.

It did not take long before a charge of treason reached SCOTUS in the sedition trial of Aaron Burr. SCOTUS left unanswered precise definitions of key terms in Art III, Section 3, however, “overt act” was read very narrowly. At its most basic, “overt act” means that someone has directly caused harm to America while actively in a state of war through one of the specific actions listed. In Burr's case, SCOTUS ruled that planning the overthrow of the federal government was not in fact an overt act, and the charge of treason was dismissed. That precedent is what we examine today.

Two questions must be answered. First, is there an “active state of war?” Second, was the publication of details of the SWIFT program an “overt act?”

To the first question, despite references to the “Global war on terror,” only the Congress can declare war. A declaration of war is a formal statement by Congress that a state of war exists between America and some belligerent nation. The Constitution has vested this power exclusively with Congress, and no statement from the President can remove this responsibility. Since al Qaida is a stateless entity, there can be no state of war between us. Congress has not (indeed cannot) declare war on al Qaida, and instead has passed an “Authorization to use force” (itself of dubious legal standing). No war, no treason.

To the second question, SCOTUS has adopted a very narrow view of what consists of an overt act. And although there is no way to know for sure exactly what stance SCOTUS would take, it is likely that mere publication of classified information would not be considered one. Clearly, passing information on military movements or secret law enforcement activities directly to the enemy would be an overt act, even under the narrow definition SCOTUS has used heretofore. However, it is highly probable that the language in the Espionage Act of 1917 and the addition of Section 798 to 18 USC (to be discussed shortly) were adopted for the reason that publication (even of classified information) would not be classified as an overt act. No overt act, no treason.

Thus, in this case, the NYT and its editors did not commit treason against the United States. This poses an interesting question, though. Suppose someone did pass classified information directly to al Qaida. Would that person be guilty of treason? Strictly speaking, since we cannot formally declare war on al Qiada, on a Constitutional basis, sadly, the answer is no. Yes, we are in a war, but it is not a war in the legal sense (which is not to say it is an illegal war, it is just not a “war” per se).

None of which is to say that the NYT did not break the law. There is not simply a binary decision between treason or no treason. 18 USC 798 “Disclosure of Classified Information” reads in relevant part [full text can be found at uscode(dot)house(dot)gov] “Whoever knowingly and willfully...publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States...any classified information...concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government...Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both...The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution”

Anyone who has ever had a security clearance knows that there are two conditions that must be met prior to the disclosure of any classified information, namely, the proper level of clearance and the need to know. It is beyond doubt that the editors of the NYT obtained this information in direct violation of 18 USC 798, and in addition, proceeded to disclose it to people without the proper clearance or the need to know. The “compelling public interest” argument the Times has used does not grant a “need to know.” Nor does it grant the right of the Times' editorial staff to decide just who has such a need.

It's not rocket science. Both the individual(s) who released the information to the Times as well as all those at the Times who were involved with the publication of the story have indeed committed a crime. That crime carries a maximum prison term of 10 years. The federal government ought to vigorously pursue charges against all those involved as a violation of 18 USC 798.

Prior Restraint No, Common Sense Yes

"Democratic governments should be largely open and transparent governments. Yet even the most open and democratic government will in certain settings require some measure of secrecy or confidentiality to function appropriately." - Rodney A. Smolla

In their never ending pursuit of destroying the current federal administration, the New York Times has once again placed their arrogance ahead of the lives of Americans. Once again they have chosen to publish details of a secret program, one that targeted terrorist finances. Within their own article, the authors admit that the program is both legal and effective. Yet they hide behind the claim of the “public's right to know” as their only justification for informing terrorists of yet another way our government tracks them.

There are two issues which I would like to address in this essay. The first is whether or not the press has a right to publish any information, however obtained. The second is whether or not the government can prevent the press from publishing secret information. Incidentally, although I disagree wholeheartedly with the Times decision, I do not believe it rises to the level of treason, a charge often applied to the latest issue. However, that will have to wait for another day.

To the first point, we must examine what right is actually granted by the Constitution. Chief Justice Warren Burger once wrote ''For the First Amendment does not speak equivocally. . . . It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will allow."

To read the language in the “broadest scope” would mean that the word “press” means both the physical device and the institution itself. As much as we may wish it to be otherwise, this means that Justice Potter Stewart was at least partially correct when he wrote that “The Free Press guarantee is, in essence, a structural provision of the Constitution. Most of the other provisions in the Bill of Rights protect specific liberties or specific rights of individuals. . . . In contrast, the Free Press Clause extends protection to an institution.” That would certainly lead to the conclusion that the newspapers and other media have a Constitutional right to publish any information that they happen to have.

What Justice Potter failed to recognize, however, was that this right is not held exclusively by the institution of the press. The press is a proxy for the people, not a regent of a right granted to the populace. The Free Press Clause grants a right concurrently to the people as individuals. Thus, the same rules that apply to a private citizen must apply to the press as an institution. If possession or dissemination of some particular knowledge by an individual would be a violation of some law, it is also a violation of the law when done so by the press.

Which brings us to the second point – whether government can prevent the publication of certain information. In his famous Commentaries, Sir William Blackstone wrote, “Where blasphemous, immoral, treasonable, schismatical, seditious, or scandalous libels are punished by English law 'the liberty of the press', properly understood, is by no means infringed or violated. The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publication, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity.” [emphasis in original]

This doctrine is known as prior restraint. Very simply, it means that the although the government cannot prevent the publication of information, the press is responsible under applicable law for what they do publish. Since US law was based on the English Common Law, prior restraint was precedent in America until the middle of the 20^th Century.

The first inroad into overturning the precedent came when Chief Justice Charles Hughes ruled that a newspaper had a constitutional right to publish, and no government could prevent that except if the country was at war and some emergency warranted prior restraint. Newspapers could face legal problems on other grounds, and of course, individuals were still able to sue for defamation. Later, Justice William Brennan, Jr. excepted from punishment any stories that involved public officials and the performance of their duties, except when a paper knowingly and maliciously published things that were untrue.

The final blow came when Justice William Douglas wrote “These disclosures [the Pentagon Papers] may have a serious impact. But that is no basis for sanctioning a previous restraint on the press. . . . The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information. A debate of large proportions goes on in the Nation over our posture in Vietnam. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health.”

Although in all cases, SCOTUS left open the possibility of using prior restraint in cases involving information that was classified, the “public's right to know” mantra had effectively been given full license by the courts as the be-all, end-all defense for press freedom. In part this is true because only an informed populace can participate effectively in the government. Since practically it is impossible for a single person to personally attend every committee hearing, every trial, etc. the only way to stay informed is through the press in all its media options. That is essentially the position that SCOTUS has taken in abandoning prior restraint as a legitimate tool of the government to restrict the press.

The interesting point is that SCOTUS has never ruled directly on prior restraint in the context of “clearly sensitive information.” None of the prior restraint cases that have reached the Supreme Court have had classified information at the core of the controversy. Rather, SCOTUS has left the exception implied and not affirmed. The government heretofore has been either unable or unwilling to directly challenge prior restraint in such a case, relying instead on the press to engage in self-censorship of sensitive information illicitly obtained.

The unfortunate consequence of this is that the NYT seems to think that they and they alone get to determine what is suitable for publication, and therein lies the problem. No one elected the editorial board of the NYT, and yet they think it is their prerogative to decide what passes muster under the “clearly sensitive” exception that SCOTUS in theory still recognizes. There is no independent check on the decision of the editorial board, and whether it is hatred of President Bush, arrogance, or just plain stupidity, they continuously decide the issue in favor of the foreign terrorists instead of the safety of America.

It's not rocket science. Freedom of the press is not an absolute right, and just as all similar rights, carries certain responsibilities that cannot be abandoned “in the interest of the public.” It appears that the only war the NYT recognizes is the war against the war. It is time for the Bush administration to take the Times to task over the most recent revelation. At the very least, it is still against the law to disclose classified information, and this may make the perfect case for SCOTUS to rule on the last remaining exception for prior restraint.

What Is Going On?

We will not tolerate these attacks by outlaw states. We will not cave in. - Ronald Reagan

I saw a group of terrorist-apologizing, anti-war zealots engaged in one of their frequent protests today. They carried a banner that read “We stand for peace and tolerance.” Their message was that all the problems in the world are caused by America, that the Muslims are peace loving freedom fighters, and that somehow, the Iraqis were better under Saddam than they are today (just don't ask for specifics). Despite studies that show Iraqi citizens today are safer than even citizens in Washington, D.C., they felt the need to continue to speak the lie that the situation in Iraq is getting worse.

Even though none of them have ever been there, even though none of them have ever spoken with a soldier who believes strongly in his mission, even though they live in the freedom guaranteed to them by those who are willing to serve, they insist that a little tolerance, understanding, and hugs will solve the problem that 1500 years of human history has not.

Muslim extremism did not begin after America rose to prominence. Islamofascists have been terrorizing the Middle East for as long as Islam has been around. Where do the liberals learn their history? How can any rational human being deny the clear record of violence?

The Muslim hatred of the Jews did not being with America's support for an independent Jewish state. The Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula began and ended long before Europeans first set foot on the North American continent. The Muslim subjugation of blacks up and down the African coast went on for nearly 1000 years before the first slave was brought to America. The attack on the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers bombing, and the killing of Marines in Beruit all predate America's involvement in Iraq. The senseless destruction of the stone Buddhas in Afghanistan had nothing to do with America. Muslims don't hate westerners because America is in the region. America is in the region because of the intolerant Muslim hatred of westerners. That is reality. It is incomprehensible to me how anyone can believe that withdrawing from Iraq will change this.

America has tried appeasement before. During the 1790s, America was a fledgling democracy far from the “civilized” part of the world. American merchant ships were seized by the Barbary pirates right along with the ships of the other western nations, not because they were American, but because they were not Muslim. All western nations were forced to pay tribute for the “privilege” of safe passage. Hundreds of citizens were sold into slavery. America sent emissaries to negotiate with the Pacha who promptly sold the emissaries into slavery as well. Appeasement does not work. It cannot work. There is no Islamic word for “truce” despite what the MSM and various Hollyweirdos are telling you.

The only thing Islam understands is force, and it wasn't until the US Navy succeeded in blockading and cannonading Tripoli while the Marines fought a heroic battle at the gates that the Muslim pirates stopped harassing American merchant ships. However, the US Navy was compelled to return to the region following the War of 1812 as a show of force to prevent a resurgence of the pirates. The Pacha was finally beaten into submission and the tribute ended. This was not a truce. This was the “regrouping” which the Koran allows (regrouping, of course, being the proper translation of the Islamic word). This was also the first time the entire free world had their collective posterior saved by America. It was not the last.

From the early 1800's to 1980, Muslim extremists did not cease their jihad, they merely pursued other targets because they perceived the American military to be too strong to engage directly. In the 1980s, the Islamofascists believed they were finally in a position of strength and the attacks on American interests resumed. However, they sought to avoid provoking America into a direct confrontation. Relying on terrorist activities, they instead sought to influence public opinion to force America to withdraw from the Middle East so that they could pursue their conquest unimpeded. Even today, the small number of jihadis try to avoid direct battle with the American soldiers because they are weak and we are strong.

But they are not stupid. The entire world saw what happens when America loses the political will to continue a fight. The more the liberals and MSM portrayed the negatives of Viet Nam, the more the average American turned against the war effort and what it meant. Even though we were winning the war, the negative sentiment forced America to “cut and run,” dooming millions to death and millions more to a life of misery under Communist rule. Now, the terrorist's best friend is the American liberal and his MSM allies. Their only goal is to cause just enough havoc to get on the 6 O'Clock news in the hopes that one more citizen will sour on the effort to bring democracy to another desperate people.

In the meantime, we sit and watch as the Hollyweird liberal elite spout anti-American drivel and chastise soldier and sailor alike. Every casualty is hyped out of all proportion while they decry the very country that made them multi-millionaires. And despite the purported hatred of America, not a single one of them has chosen to leave for Iraq or Mexico, or even Canada. Today more and more films and TV shows are made in Canada because of very favorable movie-industry tax structures and the lack of unionized labor. The very liberals who talk about the “illegal war for oil” and the “exploitation of the poor soldiers” are more than happy to flee the high wages demanded by their fellow liberal union workers in order to keep more money for themselves. All the while telling the rest of us that they know better than us what is good for America.

Recently, the Democratic Party asked Martin Sheen to run for Senate from Ohio. When declining, he said “You've confused celebrity for credibility.” If only Martin would take his own advice and just shut up. For one brief moment, one of the worst of the Hollyweird crowd had a lucid thought in which he realized that he was not in fact an expert on foreign policy. He was not an expert on public policy. In point of fact, the only thing he was expert at was standing where someone else told him and saying words someone else wrote. And this is the icon of the liberal left?

Irresponsible Congressmen like John Murtha and Lynn Woolsely are calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Woolsley even wears her hatred of America like a badge of honor by criticizing her less liberal Democratic opponent for Congress for not endorsing the “cut and run” mantra. They are encouraging college students to break the law and deny military recruiters from campuses around the country. Rather than chastise them, the MSM gives them glowing endorsements and free publicity. Where are the feminists criticizing the Islamic treatment of women? Where are the liberals complaining about forced dress codes, the lack of a free press, and mandatory attendance at religious services? This is insane. These are all things about which they routinely hold press conferences when they find it in America.

It's not rocket science. America did not ask for this fight, but we will finish it. If we give in to the liberals' wishes and flee from our responsibilities, we will condemn even more people to a life of terror and misery, worse than anything the Communists in Viet Nam were able to “accomplish.”

Government does not exist to protect you from yourself

[editor's note: This is the last in a series of six articles to be published that express my views on the nature of the Federal Government, and Congress in particular. The six principles are:

1) The Constitution is law, not a living document
2) The Constitution guarantees a government of fixed and limited powers
3) A democratically elected representative government is a right. Being a representative is not
4) Government is not a wealth transfer system
5) Government exists to promote the general welfare
6)Government does not exist to protect you from yourself

end editor's note]

Government does not exist to protect you from yourself

Maxim: Individuals are (or should be) the best arbiters of what is appropriate for themselves.

To often Congress oversteps their bounds with respect to regulating consumption of goods and services. In point of fact, Congress routinely responds to a failure of regulation with even more regulation. As Ronald Reagan said in his first inaugural address, "government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem." True, he was speaking about the economic problems facing the country at that time, but his wisdom is not less applicable to a myriad of problems facing us even today.

All too frequently, people turn to government to implement rules and regulations that further intrude into the lives of far to many people for no other reason than the fact that some people are just not capable of taking care of themselves. They believe that they ought to be able to do or say whatever they wish and that government should have the obligation of bailing them out of trouble. Too many parents abrogate the responsibility they have to raise their own children and instead expect government to enact regulations to "protect" their children from all manner of perceived ills.

Parents have recently forced Coca Cola to remove all vending machines from public schools through the threat of governmental sanctions. Several Congressional Members have called on the Federal Government to conduct hearings and impose penalties on companies engaged in producing video games because some parent groups consider them "too violent." Personal injury attorneys turn to the courts to exact usurious penalties from companies when their products are used in a manner never contemplated and cause injury to Johnny. In none of these cases do the parents ever stop to think that they bear some responsibility for the actions of their children.

Ironically, it is those same people who demand the right to control what Johnny is taught, arguing that government (i.e., school boards) do not have the authority to force Johnny to learn subjects the parents deem objectionable. Of course, when private citizens attempt to exercise their right to determine what subjects are acceptable through the form of enrolling their children in private or charter schools, those same parents then will howl that government must ensure an equality of outcome by increasing funding to their child's school. Since no one is willing to give up the funding, the predictable result is an increase in everyone's taxes and a decrease in the overall quality of public education. That these facts are interrelated escapes the cognizance of the voting public.

Using a collective "pervasiveness" theory, people assume that individual action will be either insufficient or ineffective, thus "requiring" government to get involved. If the problem is perceived as so large that only a "comprehensive solution" (to use government's favorite euphemism) is believed to solve it, people can free themselves from responsibility. But the inevitable result is that whatever regulations get enacted rarely solve the problem. Instead of vetting solutions in the free market of ideas, more regulations are crafted to cover the situations and loopholes not seen in the first set. Government grows larger and more intrusive, providing even more career bureaucrats a job for life.

This unnatural state of affairs is the antithesis of the great American experiment. This country was founded on the principles of hard work and personal commitment. The original colonists jealously guarded their personal lives, permitting government oversight of only those things that were fundamentally federal in nature. This concept of a limited government was embodied in the Constitution, unique at the time for being the first to codify a government of specific, designated powers.

Congress must pledge itself to get involved only when the problem to be confronted is one that falls under the powers listed in Article I, Section 8. Anything else is an unjust intrusion into the lives of individuals. People must take responsibility for their own lives and their own actions. Parents especially need to understand that government is not their personal nanny. Congress must resist the temptation to get involved with every perceived social ill and ask some simple questions: can private enterprise or local government better solve this problem? Is there a solution that does not require the creating of a new governmental agency and more regulations? When the answer to either question is "yes," Congress must step aside.

Government exists to promote the general welfare of a nation.

[editor's note: This is the fifth in a series of six articles to be published that express my views on the nature of the Federal Government, and Congress in particular. The six principles are:

1) The Constitution is law, not a living document
2) The Constitution guarantees a government of fixed and limited powers
3) A democratically elected representative government is a right. Being a representative is not
4) Government is not a wealth transfer system
5) Government exists to promote the general welfare
6)Government does not exist to protect you from yourself

end editor's note]

Government exists to promote the general welfare of a nation.

Maxim: Social engineering and pandering to the interests of a targeted group or region is not a legitimate goal.

Your representative does not represent your local interests at the national level, he represents you at the national level. This is more than a trivial difference in semantics. The nature of a representative was a topic of much debate in the early years of the Republic. In one of the few instances where he was wrong, Thomas Paine aligned himself with the former position, while Edmund Burke championed the (correct) latter.

Burke had learned as a Member of Parliament that it was sometimes necessary to vote in a manner that was contrary to the opinions of his constituents who might not be in possession of all the facts and the true state of affairs. Said Burke, "Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion...Parliament is not a Congress of Ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an Agent and Advocate, against other Agents and Advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative Assembly of one Nation, with one Interest, that of the whole; where, not local Purposes, not local Prejudices ought to guide, but the general Good, resulting from the general Reason of the whole." As right as he was, unfortunately for Burke, this position ultimately cost him his seat.

It might be tempting in reading the above quote to conclude that he was making a comparison between the British Parliamentary system and a federal system, a Congress, like ours (Burke said the above in 1765, prior to the American War for Independence). This reading would be wrong. A "Congress of Ambassadors" would more closely align with the Committee of the Whole during the Constitutional Convention. In that body, the members were free to express their ideas and concerns from the standpoint of "would this benefit (or harm) the people in my State." In fact, this is the very reason that the Committee of the Whole was formed. It was the only way to ensure that any member could speak his mind and vote in a non-binding, non-impugnable manner while working out the details of the final form of the federal government. However, once that government was formed, it became the expressed duty of the elected members to look out for the general welfare as Burke had rightfully concluded.

In their eternal quest to remain bureaucrats for life, however, Congressmen continually try to get the most benefit for their local district. In fact, voters have come to expect, through the creation of the entitlement society foisted on America by the atrocious 'New Deal' and other such legislation, that Congress exists primarily to secure as much of the pie as possible for the home district, even when that means limiting or reducing the amount of pie available for every other district.

This egregious "give-me-more mentality" frequently leads Congressmen into passing legislation that hurts America in favor of his local district. Examples of this abound, from Congress' eternal bickering over BRAC recommendations to pork-barrel funding of bridges to nowhere. Often they resort to the borderline childish tactic of attaching an earmark to legislation which, due to previous "protect my job" rules, is considered a "must pass" resolution. Thus, a recent defense authorization to provide our brave servicemen the tools necessary to do their job came with an amendment to fund a sugar-cane research facility in New Orleans and the relocation of a brand new railroad bed in Mississippi 100 yards away from its current position. Both provisions were placed in this "must pass" legislation because the respective Congressman were unable to obtain the funding during earlier debates on a transportation bill.

Congress must remember the words of Thomas Paine: "Government is not a trade which any man or body of men has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties." Congress must remember that their duty is to the Country, not to their district.

Government is not a wealth transfer system.

[editor's note: This is the fourth in a series of six articles to be published that express my views on the nature of the Federal Government, and Congress in particular. The six principles are:

1) The Constitution is law, not a living document
2) The Constitution guarantees a government of fixed and limited powers
3) A democratically elected representative government is a right. Being a representative is not
4) Government is not a wealth transfer system
5) Government exists to promote the general welfare
6)Government does not exist to protect you from yourself

end editor's note]

Government is not a wealth transfer system.
Maxim: Welfare is anathema to a free, capitalist society.

In 1794, James Madison addressed Congress and stated he could not "undertake to lay [his] finger on that article of the Federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." For more than 70 years this principle held sway. Then the Socialist left found religion in the form of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment guarantees to every citizen equal protection under the law. This clause has been hijacked by the minions of political correctness and multi-culturalism to justify any manner of social program designed to provide a defined benefit to some “historically disadvantaged” group usually at the expense of society as a whole, but sometimes more nefariously at the expense of a some other perceived “advantaged” group.

Under the guise of 14th Amendment principles, Federal and State governments have found ways to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits and services to people based solely on race and gender as qualifiers. Government created Social Security and Medicare, burdening future taxpayers with the task of funding retirement for previous generations of people who failed to plan ahead. In short, the left has used the 14th Amendment to institute Socialism in America.

There is not a single example in history of a country where Socialism was successful. Quite to the contrary, the adoption of Socialist principles has invariably resulted in decreased production, depressed economies, and miserable populations constantly teetering on the brink of disaster. Western nations that have socialized medicine must support their systems through oppressive taxes that hurt both businesses and citizens. Government controls stifle innovation and competition, leading to long waiting times for sub-standard services. Regulation invariably leads to even more regulation as loopholes are found, requiring the transfer of even more wealth to ensure “proper” redistribution. That is the inescapable reality of Socialism.

America was founded by people who believed in the dignity of hard work and self sacrifice. This “rugged individualism” as Roosevelt called it was a virtually inexhaustible supply of raw talent. Capitalism was the catalyst that turned that talent into goods and services that did precisely what Socialism claimed: improving the human condition. Capitalism provides the incentive to work and study harder to invent something new and useful. Capitalism motivates professionals to become the best in their field. Capitalism induces people to attempt what others consider impossible. Thomas Paine said, “There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resources, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act.”

Capitalism is part of human nature. It is the only economic system that is not the product of human creation. The desire to improve one's condition is an innate characteristic of man. That is why all other economic systems require intensive governmental control of both the means and results of production, and why they are ultimately doomed to failure.

With all history supporting this premise, indeed with the 20th Century standing as a complete repudiation of the Marxist beliefs, it is hard to imagine how a culture of entitlement could gain root within the West. Every effort at welfare has been an abject failure. The proponents would argue that is because government did not do enough, which leads to more welfare, which leads to more failures in the system, ad infinitum.

From education to health care, government control just does not work. Prior to the existence of welfare, Americans donated far more money to private relief organizations than they do now. Prior to Social Security, families took care of each other. Prior to Medicare, doctors and hospitals would provide low or no-cost health care to those in need. It took the passage of the New Deal to transform America into the great welfare state.

With government guaranteeing retirement money, people learned not to plan. With government guaranteeing payments for medical expenses, doctors had no incentive to provide free care or improve treatment. The more the government gave, the more the socialist left demanded. Rather than pack up their tents and move on when their good intentions failed as all Socialist programs do, the left convinced everyone who was not a white male that they were a victim, and as victims were owed things by the government.

America was thus transformed from the great welfare state to the great entitlement state where the only qualification for special treatment was being a member of a defined victim group. People were either oppressors or the oppressed, and under the socialist agenda, the 14th Amendment could be used to obtain any manner of preferential treatment. This is as un-American as it is unconstitutional.

Equality of opportunity does not require equality of outcome. America is all about choice. We do not all drive the same car, live in the same house, wear the same clothes, or eat the same food. Choice alone demands that the outcome cannot be equal. Government must protect equal access. Socialist Welfare programs that provide benefits to one group at the exclusion of another by definition is not equal access.

Congress must seek to promote the capitalist system in the least intrusive manner possible. Economic redistribution systems such as welfare as it exists today must end. A very wise anonymous person once said, “the surest way to get anything done is to tell an American that it is impossible.” Congress must get out of the way of the natural talent existing in each one of us and let loose the free market system. The freedom to pursue one's own path within reason will succeed where no amount of regulation can.